Speculation: 2014 - 2015 New York Rangers :: Roster building / proposal thread Part II

[Levitate]

I agree for sure, and I also think you are forgetting one additional issue.

You have a 5 on 5 Brad Richards.

And you have a 5 on 4 Brad Richards. Dan Boyle is replacing the 5 on 4 Brad Richards.

In the POs, Brad Richards only avg 12:19/G 5 on 5, and that includes the OT games. Derric Brassard, for example, played more 5 on 5 than BR in the POs. Dom Moore played a minuet less than BR. We are a 4 line team 5 on 5 and we are replacing one of those centers; Step with 14 min per game, Brass with 12:45, BR with 12:19 and Moore with 11:18.

BR made a few offensive plays 5 on 5, he especially made some nifty passes to Hagelin on a regular basis. But that's about what we are loosing. BR was too much behind the play 5 on 5, Miller is much more active. Much more of a force on the foreheck. JT can make some nifty plays on his own right, and he will for sure once he gets to settle down in a top 9 role with good players next to him.

We shouldn't underrate BR, but BR was mainly a PP player for us last season. Dan Boyle replaces him on the PP. I wouldn't at all be suprised if JT was an upgrade over BR 5 on 5 this coming season. I don't think that is a stretch.

Definitely. Richards isn't irreplaceable BUT I don't know if it will be Miller that replaces his 5 on 5 time...we'll see. I'd like it to be, as Miller brings a lot of things to the table if he can approach the game with more consistency and apparently professionalism

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

See: my post on the 3rd page of the Zuccarello thread (when almost everyone was complaining about the 1-year deal):

"They can negotiate a long-term deal in January. I think this is actually a slick move by Sather. He gets him for a cheap cap-hit this season, and then will give him a longer term extension in January. It's a clever way of circumventing the cap by not having this year's cap-hit affect the long term average.

Sometimes you've got to read between the lines, fellas.

This is a smart move."



You didn't seem to think that was the plan on page 3 of the Zuccarello thread:

"Wow. So short sighted. He can be a UFA next summer correct? Yea, that's gonna be cheap.

Edit - I guess te front office still views him as a risky sign long term? Still, a 45 point guy at 4.5 x 4 is way better than the alternative...a 6.5M+ Zucc next summer if he tops 60 points this year."


I guess I convinced you.

No my point is exactly the same, thanks. First of all, if that is the plan, it is an incredibly risky plan with plenty of potential to backfire. Circumstances and emotion could cause either side to reconsider in January with a limited window before UFA.

Second of all, by having the squeeze every last nickel out of this season (while wasting $ elsewhere), they are robbing peter to pay paul - again refusing to leverage RFA years to reduce long term cap hits.

Winding up with Stepan at 6.5M long term and Zucc at 5.5-6M long term vs a combined 9-9.5M.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

I agree for sure, and I also think you are forgetting one additional issue.

You have a 5 on 5 Brad Richards.

And you have a 5 on 4 Brad Richards. Dan Boyle is replacing the 5 on 4 Brad Richards.

In the POs, Brad Richards only avg 12:19/G 5 on 5, and that includes the OT games. Derric Brassard, for example, played more 5 on 5 than BR in the POs. Dom Moore played a minuet less than BR. We are a 4 line team 5 on 5 and we are replacing one of those centers; Step with 14 min per game, Brass with 12:45, BR with 12:19 and Moore with 11:18.

BR made a few offensive plays 5 on 5, he especially made some nifty passes to Hagelin on a regular basis. But that's about what we are loosing. BR was too much behind the play 5 on 5, Miller is much more active. Much more of a force on the foreheck. JT can make some nifty plays on his own right, and he will for sure once he gets to settle down in a top 9 role with good players next to him.

We shouldn't underrate BR, but BR was mainly a PP player for us last season. Dan Boyle replaces him on the PP. I wouldn't at all be suprised if JT was an upgrade over BR 5 on 5 this coming season. I don't think that is a stretch.

Agree completely.

And let's not pretend Richards didn't make some bonehead plays with the puck, either. A lot of blind passes and cross ice passes at the blue line resulting in turnovers. He did have a very good bounce back season. But his age started to show as the Rangers went deeper.

Miller is strong on the boards, strong on the forecheck, finishes checks, and has good hands. What i find disturbing and frankly annoying, is the b.s. being thrown about a just-turned 21 year old player, as if he were some journeyman player with off-ice issues on his last tour of the NHL before playing in Europe for the rest of his career...its ridiculous. This is a kid, like Kreider and Stepan, that has not only won but also lead at every level he's been. U18 Gold, U20 Gold, PPG in AHL.

This is what happens, a young player progresses at the lower level to the point they are ready to develop at the NHL. They need the chance to grow as an NHL player and that means dealing with and working through warts in his game.

He is going to be given the opportunity.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

Stepan is RFA next season. As is Hagelin.

So the team might in worst case end up with these free agents:

UFA:
MSL
Zucc
Brassard
Staal
Talbot

RFA:
Stepan
Hagelin
J. Moore

There is some work ahead for Sather

Damn - those are some pretty important/some of my favorite players. Eesh.

 

[Fletch]

It's not that I don't disagree with what you're saying. I am looking at it differently.

With Vigneault's 4 line system, offensive production seems to be a "points by committee" mindset.

The Rangers lost Stralman, but added Dan Boyle. Hypothetically, worst case, that should net us an extra 20 points from 1 position change.

The Rangers lost Poo, but added Lee Stempniak, a guy with historical totals similar to that of Benoit. No net gain or loss.

The Rangers lost Brad Richards, but are adding JT Miller. For point of argument, if we set Miller's final season point total to 40, slightly under .5 ppg in an 82 game season, the Rangers would be losing roughly 10 points from Richards to Miller.

Exchanging Callahan for MSL nets us anywhere from 15-25 net points more than we would have expected keeping Callahan.

Losing Boyle but adding Lombardi or Lindberg should hypothetically mean at the very least producing 18 points, what Boyle gave us last year, if not striking lightning and getting even more point production from that position.

Glass and Dorsett should be an absolute wash.

A healthy Nash returning to anywhere near a PPG pace should yield 15-25 more points in and of itself.

Improvements to Kreider, Stepan, Zucc, and Brassard's games, in terms of maturing, playing with better linemates more consistently should get us 10-15 more points collectively. For example, what I mean is, if Kreider boosts his production to 40-45 points, Stepan to 60, Brassard to 50, and Zucc to 65... we'd have a net gain of about 15-20 points from last year from those very same players. It's not even improbable to assume that these players will achieve this, as Stepan has been increasing his offensive output with every year he has played, Zucc and Brassard both set to improve slightly with better chemistry together, and Kreider adding 3-8 more points with a full season of hockey rather than playing 67 games is also a reasonable total to add.

The Rangers are adding offensive output, hypothetically, everywhere besides the Miller for Richards swap.

Clearly, all of these will likely not happen, but there is far greater probability for gains than losses.

I think this is more about taking a step back and realizing this team is deviating from the conventional 4 line strategy and doing something similar to Boston's scoring by committee tactic.

I think the way to look at Stralman/Boyle points is Richards' PP points and Stralman's ES points. On a points basis 19 PP points is going out and 13 ES points is going out. Boyle tallied 18 PP points, so figure that's a wash. He tallied 18 ES points, so on a points basis, all else being equal (and being on a team that scored a fair amount less goals, equal may be generous), you're talking about a net add of 5 points. If you want to talk about goals, it would be a net add of 6, assuming Boyle scores the same amount of goals last season.

The one issue I have with some of these points scenarios is that a lot needs to go right for it to happen. I'm with you. I can see a full season of MSL + a healthy and productive Nash + Stepan and Kreider improving + Brassard's line being the same as it was last season + Miller stepping it up and getting at least 30+ points, perhaps with greater defensive focus + Boyle may equal the production of a bottom half of the league scoring team. I can see it, but everyone needs to be healthy and most everyone needs to be better than last season to remain status quo.

 

[RangerBoy]

Zuccarello at $3.5M gives the Rangers room to give Brassard more. Brassard needs to get more than one year. Bryan Little at $4.7M. Little is at .598 points per game. Brassard is at .558 points per game. Brassard has 24 points in 36 playoff games. Little has not played any NHL playoff games. Same age.

Little got 5 years/$23.5M

$4M last season. Arbitration year

Next 4 are group III. $4.75M per for this and next. $5M per the last 2 years.

Something like that for Brassard. He's a center and turns 27 later this year.

The Rangers could give Brassard $4.7M

$2.5M for Kreider

$1.25M for Moore

Leaves $1.4-5M for another spare forward and to operate the team.

 

[Off Sides]

No my point is exactly the same, thanks. First of all, if that is the plan, it is an incredibly risky plan with plenty of potential to backfire. Circumstances and emotion could cause either side to reconsider in January with a limited window before UFA.

Second of all, by having the squeeze every last nickel out of this season (while wasting $ elsewhere), they are robbing peter to pay paul - again refusing to leverage RFA years to reduce long term cap hits.

Winding up with Stepan at 6.5M long term and Zucc at 5.5-6M long term vs a combined 9-9.5M.

Incredibly risky is an understatement in my opinion.

Like you said it's a dynamic situation, things change, all we know is Zucc is slated to become a UFA next off-season.

End result he either leaves, or the Rangers pay more than they would have had to in order to retain him.

He either has a good season and he is worth more, or he has a poor season and that does not help the Rangers.

The only win for the Rangers would be if he proves not to be worth that contract and I'm not sure how to look at that as a win. More like "well at least they did not" sort of scenario which usually leads to "they did what?" sort of scenario.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Brooks said John Moore may sign around 850k. That would be an absolute ****ing steal.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Apparent Kreider has signed for 2.35 year one and 2.6 year 2. 2 years, 2.475 AAV. Tim Wharnsby reported it

 

[TheTakedown]

Possible they give Brassard 4 x $4.2-4.5M or something similar?

 

[nyr2k2]

After Kreider's deal, what do we have left for Brassard and Moore?

 

[TeamStewie]

Took some digging man. The only other time in history that Rick Nash has been this happy is when the Rangers beat Columbus in his return.

VERY happy.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

Brooks said John Moore may sign around 850k. That would be an absolute ****ing steal.

He really has no leverage.

His QO is around 850k. He's not arbitration-eligible.

He either accepts what they offer or he sits out.

 

[Paulie Walnutz]

Booth went to Toronto

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I think the way to look at Stralman/Boyle points is Richards' PP points and Stralman's ES points. On a points basis 19 PP points is going out and 13 ES points is going out. Boyle tallied 18 PP points, so figure that's a wash. He tallied 18 ES points, so on a points basis, all else being equal (and being on a team that scored a fair amount less goals, equal may be generous), you're talking about a net add of 5 points. If you want to talk about goals, it would be a net add of 6, assuming Boyle scores the same amount of goals last season.

The one issue I have with some of these points scenarios is that a lot needs to go right for it to happen. I'm with you. I can see a full season of MSL + a healthy and productive Nash + Stepan and Kreider improving + Brassard's line being the same as it was last season + Miller stepping it up and getting at least 30+ points, perhaps with greater defensive focus + Boyle may equal the production of a bottom half of the league scoring team. I can see it, but everyone needs to be healthy and most everyone needs to be better than last season to remain status quo.

As I said, I don't think all will happen. But I think the outlook for gains is more probable than the outlook for losses.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

Booth is a good risk/reward signing for TOR.

I think he'll have a good season there. 20/30/50 isn't out of the question. He'll definitely get the ice time there.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Zuccarello at $3.5M gives the Rangers room to give Brassard more. Brassard needs to get more than one year. Bryan Little at $4.7M. Little is at .598 points per game. Brassard is at .558 points per game. Brassard has 24 points in 36 playoff games. Little has not played any NHL playoff games. Same age.

Little got 5 years/$23.5M

$4M last season. Arbitration year

Next 4 are group III. $4.75M per for this and next. $5M per the last 2 years.

Something like that for Brassard. He's a center and turns 27 later this year.

The Rangers could give Brassard $4.7M

$2.5M for Kreider

$1.25M for Moore

Leaves $1.4-5M for another spare forward and to operate the team.

So $4.85M for Brassard long term?

Uh. No.

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

I like Brassard - he's a nice player that can do a lot of things and has shown up when it counts for this team.

But i still feel like he's got more to prove and giving him over 4.5 is too much right now. I know thats what hell command given the market though. Its something every team has to live with otherwise they lose centers. Brassard is a 2nd line center on a lot of teams. Maybe a 3rd on a really good team. Cant break the bank for that but it is what it is.

 

[Emptyvoid]

4.8 mil/year for Brassard for 4+ years would be a great deal imo...

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Yeah, I don't think signing a one dimensional 45 point center to a 4 year, $4.8M per year contract would be the best idea.

 

[Emptyvoid]

Even 1 dimensional players can be very valuable if they do well in their role.

Brassard is a valuable PP player for us and centered our most consistent line last year. Also he's shown that he can up his game in the playoffs.

Centers naturally come at a premium too.

I can understand where you're coming from, but in this market, cap continuing to rise and considering all of Brassard's attributes, still feel 4.8 per over 4+ years would be great.

 

[OverTheCap]

Brassard is below average defensively for a center and plays sheltered minutes. He's not a center that is suited to play in all situations - doesn't PK, not a guy you want on the ice when protecting a 1 goal lead in the waning minutes of a game, etc. I'm hoping that keeps his price below $5 mil and closer to $4.5 mil.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Personally, I think the most sensible thing to do with Brassard is give him the QO and assess Miller and/or Lindberg and see how they slot in.

I do think that we will find a 2c that is more productive than Brassard. Namely, I've been thinking Stamkos as long as he doesn't sign long term in TB. We're certainly on the outside looking in on him, but he's a guy I think the Rangers target heavily. Coming back to play with Marty would be enticing, and I'm guessing that Sather dropped a seed in his head about coming to the Rangers when that Del Zotto Stamkos trade was being discussed.

I think anything more than a 2 year deal for Brassard will be a mistake. And I don't think he should get a cent over 4.3, but that's just me. Clearly that offer is very unrealistically low given his demands.

 

[BBKers]

Personally, I think the most sensible thing to do with Brassard is give him the QO and assess Miller and/or Lindberg and see how they slot in.

I do think that we will find a 2c that is more productive than Brassard. Namely, I've been thinking Stamkos as long as he doesn't sign long term in TB. We're certainly on the outside looking in on him, but he's a guy I think the Rangers target heavily. Coming back to play with Marty would be enticing, and I'm guessing that Sather dropped a seed in his head about coming to the Rangers when that Del Zotto Stamkos trade was being discussed.

I think anything more than a 2 year deal for Brassard will be a mistake. And I don't think he should get a cent over 4.3, but that's just me. Clearly that offer is very unrealistically low given his demands.

Del Zotto for Stamkos would have even trumped the Gomez for McD steal
In an alternative universe somewhere... NYR fans are smiling like tickled children

 

[Doctyl]

People seriously undervalue Brass. He's a lot more important to this team than people give him credit for.